Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: partial-update semantics ('only provided fields are updated') and a slug-uniqueness validation constraint. It stops short of permissions or failure modes, but this is solid added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose, then behavior constraints, then a parameter list. Every line earns its place given 0% schema coverage; repetition of '(leave empty to keep current)' is informative rather than filler, though the block is somewhat long.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A mutation tool with annotations, an output schema (so return values need not be described), and all parameters documented in the description. Complete for correct invocation, missing only siblings routing and permission/error details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: each of the 10 parameters is documented with meaning and the 'leave empty to keep current' default behavior. This fully compensates for the undocumented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a page's metadata') and enumerates the affected fields (title, slug, SEO fields, custom HTML). Clear enough for an agent to act, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_cms_post or update_directory_item.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides useful constraints ('Only provided fields are updated', 'Slug must be unique in the project'), implying PATCH-style partial updates. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and does not point to get_page for reading current values.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.